The comments below have not been moderated in advance and are not produced by The Local unless clearly stated.
Readers are responsible for the content of their own comments. Comments that breach our terms and conditions will be removed.

TV Licences needed for iPads and computers

Regarding the latest SVT changes ...

I have been reading a few of these stories regarding so called changes to the way state funded channels are being put online which will subsequently now require that any person who has a computer or iPad will be subject to a TV "license" fee - regardless if they own a TV.

Now I have read a lot of comment on the 2 stories printed on the local, but have a few thoughts and intrigue regarding the law and how it is implemented.

According to an article the other day, the SVT CEO stated that the channel would start to deliver its content online soon and would now result in anyone owning a computer to be bound to the TV license fee. Irrespective of weather they used it or not. Claiming that when the law was amended in 2006 it left in provisions to deal with changing technology and how it is delivered and defined. Is this really the case, having looked over it in the past, I cant remember seeing anything that covered this claim. It did make references to a TV Receiver, and at the time I emailed radiotjanst and asked for a definition which they were unable to make a legal definition - and more so gave a brief idea of what they thought it covered at the time.

Another interesting fact is, that while the licence fee claims to be for any transmission regarding what they define as tv content. It only seems to have been suggested after an attempt to get state funded channels distributed via internet data transmission. Which begs the question, are swedish state channels the only channels that can be legally enforced in regards to licence fee's ? as while the documentation I have read in the past claims it covers any transmissions, it only seems to be enforced when technology has been made available by these particular state channels.

There are obviously many people who object to these new measures taken, as they state that it is unfair that computer users who may not even have any interest in such state channels should be burdened with such overheads, given they may use the net for other things other than. Which has resulted in certain ISP providers stating they are looking in to ways to block such, and thus remove responsibility from persons having to pay for such if they dont want it. Is this really feasible? I mean that law I have read in the past is wooly to say the least, and it would seem that since such ISP's dont hold a specific content agreement with the government in regards to such, that I cant see it having much value? Especially if radiotjanst decide to reinterpret the law as they see fit for the sake of revenue.

Last but not least, if this law is written in a manner that is open to interpretation or poor definition seeking clarity. How would the average Swede appeal or look to get such queried by the courts? As from my understanding anyone who believed there was an error or wanted clarification could be liable for heavy legal fee's. Which makes me wonder how the general public look into or question certain laws they are governed with, especially in regards to those used to generate revenue.

I also wonder if there are any european laws that could somehow invalidate such claims by the CEO in regards to which devices are eligible to incur such fee? As in the past, its been referred to as a TV receiver and previously a device defined as a TV tuner. Which covered any type of channel or content, but is now only enforced after Specific Swedish state funded channels have spent money developing new forms of delivery methods without an opt out option.

What a stupid idea !!! Sweden are so clever on taking money of everyone , I bet they got a team of ppl telling them to find a problem to take more money of the ppl . I bet apple won't be happy about this . Apple sells premium products and I would never pay a penny for one more thing .

Well ...this was expected, and for some time. This is why it would have been a much better option to scrap the license fee and just impose the additional annual charge onto tax declarations.

QUOTE (byke @ 26.Jan.2013, 01:31 AM)

I also wonder if there are any european laws that could somehow invalidate such claims by the CEO in regards to which devices are eligible to incur such fee? As in the past, i
... (show full quote)

I also wonder if there are any european laws that could somehow invalidate such claims by the CEO in regards to which devices are eligible to incur such fee? As in the past, its been referred to as a TV receiver and previously a device defined as a TV tuner. Which covered any type of channel or content, but is now only enforced after Specific Swedish state funded channels have spent money developing new forms of delivery methods without an opt out option.
... (hide full quote)

No, because the EU does not delve into such details ...yet!

Sweden can impose whatever charge it likes, as long as it treats Domestic and EU sourced products the same. EU only gets involved when there are restrictive measures that directly or indirectly give the Member States own products/sourcing an advantage.

So essentially while the latest claims, look to claim that computer users and iPad owners will be subjected to such TV fee's. The way the authorities will look to implement this will be not through hardware, but through subscriptions to Internet access from ISP's.

Which would indicate that SVT has thought long and hard about this, as they have mentioned that mobile phones wont be considered liable for such TV Licence fee's - As who owns a fixed home internet connection to power a mobile phone?

So I suppose those who dont pay such licence will have to take it on the chin.At least until someone is willing to bankroll a court case to determine the interpretation of the law.

Public broadcasting is a typical area where the public TV services of the various EU countries need to get together. A lot of the stuff can be produced together and resources can be pooled. But I guess each country wants its own propaganda machine.

Is it not the case that, if you have a TV licence for the home, it covers any number of TV's i.e. anything that can reproduce TV, be it TV, video, mobile or surf tablet? In which case such a kafuffle is a storm in a teacup, and it will only affect those who do not live at home, such as children who have left the nest, and are trying to dodge paying a TV licence anyway?So often this sort of things gets banner headlines, when in fact it is an issue that only affects a small minority any way.

In which case such a kafuffle is a storm in a teacup, and it will only affect those who do not live at home, such as children who have left the nest, and are trying to dodge paying a TV licence anyway?So often this sort of things gets banner headlines, when in fact it is an issue that only affects a small minority any way.

Not really. It will affect any place that has a computer with an internet connection but doesn't already have a TV. Think about the potential. A hairdresser, car mechanic, cafe, offices, etc.

Exactly right, His. This is merely closing a loophole being exploited by a lazy few who are obsessed with screwing the system for all that they can. And now they are pissed. A nothing story being whipped into hysteria by, well, no real surprises there. As with most service and supply agreements, you pay for the right to have something. Whether or not you choose to use it is up to you, but you have the ability to use it. That's what you pay for. I will say that Sweden is making it difficult for themselves. The idea of a broadcasting fee is completely outdated. Most countries have dumped that and collect the same revenue as an additional part of general taxation. Stops all the moaning and groaning.

How were these people exploiting a loophole?As far as I knew, there was no live streaming of Swedish state channels prior to SVT's announcement the other day that it planned to commandeer the world wide web to be able to get the data out to a so called larger audience. I suppose commandeering the value of print is slightly antiquated and potentially taxing the right to read may have caused greater uproar.

SVT should be reduced to SVT1 and Kunskapskanalen. They should concentrate wholly on documentaries, cultural stuff and children's programming. One of either Report or Aktueel should be axed. There's no need for the two of them.

The whole point of public broadcasting is to provide what the commercial channels can't. All this family entertainment shite like Melodifestivalen and På Spåret should not be on SVT, it should be on a commercial channel.

Take P3 for example, it sounds just like a commercial pop channel, complete with DJs bla bla ing all the time about what they had for breakfast. That kind of stuff shouldn't be funded by public money.

While I hate SVT and the fee, the law is quite clear: it states that any device with the possibility to receive ground based transmissions requires a TV-licence. It does not matter if you can actually receive any signals or not, or if the device has a screen.

With the new proposal, following what they have in Denmark and Germany, they will include any device that can be hooked up to the internet, no matter if you actually have internet connection or not. So ISPs blocking SVTs IP addresses will not matter in the law.

PSD Media
PSD Media is marketing company that offers innovative solutions for online retailers. We provide modern solutions that help increase traffic and raise conversion. Visit our site at: psdmedia.se